THE GAMING ACT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19626, 21 October 1933, Page 8

THE GAMING ACT

REMOVAL OF SOME RESTRICTIONS EFFORTS BEING MADE IN HOUSE By Telegraph—press Association WELLINGTON, October 20. Moving the second reading in the House of Representatives this afternoon of the Gaming Amendment Bill whiph proposes to permit the telegraphing of bets to the totalisator, the introduction of the double totalisator and the publication of dividends, Mr E. F. Healy (C., Wairau) said that he was astounded that at a time when taxation was so high no attempt was being made to employ this means of raising revenue without cost to the Government. Tens of thousands of sporting people were demanding the concessions which the Bill would confer. Wonderful facilities had been provided throughout the Dominion to encourage the breeding of thoroughbreds, yet a number of small racing clubs were in danger of going out of existence because of the lack of revenue. He personally had been connected with racing since 1889. It was 43 years since he had first owned and raced horses, and he had held every office in a racing club. He therefore considered. that he was able to speak with some knowledge on the subject matter of the Bill. “Fonr Square.” “No one respects more than I do all the churches and those who attend them,” Mr Healy said. "I am not only a racing man, but I am also a churchman and I stand four square for thin Bill." It looked as though there was a “holy alliance" between the churches and illegal bettors in opposition to the measure. The present law suited the people who laid the odds illegally. The Bill would turn gambling into legal channels and reduce it to a great extent because the totalisator never gave credit, never asked for bets and never made mistakes. In his opinion the churches should join with the supporters of the Bill in endeavouring to eliminate illegal betting. Continuing, Mr Healy said that from 1918-19 to date approximately £IOB,000,000 had passed through the totalisator in New Zealand, and the racing revenue to the Treasury had amounted nearly to £8,000,000. This revenue would be considerably increased If the Bill passed. Mr Healy referred to the freedom of New Zealand racecourses from the undesirable aspects experienced overseas, and went on to mention tipsters he had met on racecourses in the United States. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (C„ Eden): Did you go to the Mexico races. Mr Healy: No, I was not game to go where Phar Lap lost his life. Referring to the publication of dividends, Mr Healy said that everyone could be proud of the Press of New Zealand, yet he believed It was the only Press in the world that was prevented from publishing dividends. Concluding, Mr Healy said that he was prepared to abide by a majority vote of the House as to whether the Bill should be passed into law. All he asked of opponents was that It should be given a fair run and should be allowed to go to a vote. Mr Jordan’s Criticism. Mr W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) said that Carbine had been bred in his district, and he was prepared to admit that there was something very fine about watching a horse race, but those who were enthusiastic about sport should be prepared to pay for it. One would have expected that the Bill would have provided better facilities for people to gather together to see these fine displays of sportsmanship, but, on the contrary, it was making it easier for people to put money on a horse without seeing it race. Was it sportsmanship to go into a telephone box and say: “I will put my week’s wages on that horse.” Mr A. Harris (C„ Waitemata): They are doing that now. Mr Jordan: Then why the Bill? Mr Harris: They are not putting it on the totalisator. Continuing, Mr Jordan said that the Bill discouraged attendance at races and made it easier for people to bet without going to the course. Mr Healy had mentioned that petitions signed by more than 7000 people had supported the Bill, but there had been petitions with more than 18,000 signatures favouring the licensing of bookmakers. This argument really counted for nothing. There might be 7000 in favour of the Bill and 70.000 against it. Mr Healy had referred to the revenue from horse racing. Mr Jordan said that he wondered how much had been obtained in revenue in the last 10 years from fines for drunkenness. Should Parliament grant more -facilities for drunkenness in order to Increase the revenue from fines? New Role for Postmasters. Mr Jordan suggested that if the Bill became law the business agent of the Post Office would be bound to encourage betting by telegraph. One could Imagine a postmaster standing out on the street trying to induce people to send telegrams. He would say: “Roll up! Roll up! This horse is bound to win. It carried 7.6 the last time and is earning 7.3 to-day with Richards or Doneghue up. Come and make your bets.” Surely there were enough gambling facilities already without adding anv more. Mr Harris said that the Bill would make horse racing and betting cleaner. Bookmakers had been the ruin of many young men in New Zealand. They were the greatest opponents cf the Bill because they knew it would reduce their business. Mr F. W. Schramm (Lab., Auckland East) said that there was no need for the double totalisator. Telegraphing bets had led to the ruin of many good men in the past and would do so again, if the Bill became law. Mr R. W. Hawke (C., Kalapol) said that he was opposed to granting facilities for gambling in New Zealand. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House at 5.30 p.m. and was set down for resumption next Wednesday.